wormfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Cape name VS Real Name
I think we need to finalise how we refer to characters, explicately make it clear and standardize that aspect of the wiki. I personally think the pages look better when they are arranged by'' cape name and not by ''real name, particularly when only some characters have both a first and last name in the text. The basic character template also includes a section for 'civilian name'. As someone who has been working extensively on the Colln Wallis page (that needs to be renamed), I really do think the wiki would be better served by having a page for Armsmaster and a page for Defiant. It is kind of unwieldy otherwise. We know, for example, that cape names need to be unique. It also allows us to create an easy list of cape names 'in use' for future reference through an index of all the character pages if they are done by cape name. Given that the characters are known generally by their cape name first and foremost, it is what people will be searching for when they come to this wiki. Thoughts? I believe that we should use the civilian names of characters that we know. It's okay to use cape names for those that we don't know about, but if we know that character's real name, why not use it? Gesshoku (talk) 04:57, September 25, 2014 (UTC) We can go either way, it's just something we need to figure out so we can go back and fix up pages and etc. I personally think we should use cape names just because every character has one but every character does not necessarily have a full first and last name, so, we'll have some characters listed as, for example, Colin Wallis, when we know their full name, some listed as Hannah when we only know their first name, and some listed as their cape name (assuming we don't run into any characters with the same name). It just seems a bit messy. It seems simpler since we can direct people to use the character infobox and just fill it out and we know that cape names are unique. And I'd argue that we know these characters as their cape names first and foremost with the exception of Taylor/Skitter and are referred to most of the time as their cape names. - preceptcaine I can see where you are coming from. It is difficult making character pages if you only have the character's cape name or their first name. In the case of the Fortuna/Contessa article, we decided to use "Contessa" because that was what she was called most of the time. I suggest that we name the articles of characters with full names their full civilian id with redirects to the pages based on their cape names. As for those without last names, I would like to have the pages with their first name, but I can see where problems would arise. Gesshoku (talk) 05:24, September 25, 2014 (UTC) either way, yeah, there'll be issues. if we use full names, armsmaster and defiant are crammed into one page (similar to weaver/skitter). if we use cape names, armsmaster and defiant would be split up. are you suggesting the use of full civilian names if we know them and, if not, using the name we know the character most by? on a personal level, i would find it strange to - just for example - have a page for geoff pellick when everyone refers to him as saint first and foremost. that's pretty much what drives my argument: how people refer to the characters. part of me also thinks that we should try and keep some of the bigger spoilers - like khepri - somewhat removed, just in case someone wants to, say, buff up on their skitter knowledge as they go. either way, whatever works, and can be standarised without issue, works. -preceptcaine I suppose that we could leave the main characters with the ones having their full names (Taylor, Brian, Lisa, Rachel, Alec, and etc.) while leaving the other character pages to be named by what they're most referred to as. Gesshoku (talk) 05:47, September 25, 2014 (UTC) i'd say that works :) - preceptcaine Alright. I would also like to say that we should try to reference the information we put into our articles. I have created a series of guidelines, but until one of our admins get on, we don't have a real manual of style. Or someone to make the main page/character boxes look better. Gesshoku (talk) 06:00, September 25, 2014 (UTC) yeah, the wiki could definitely do with a bit of styling. it is kind of bland. i haven't done any referencing for collin and dragon articles yet but it should be simple enough as i've only drawn from their relevant interludes and epilogues for the most part - easy enough for me to track down. should we only mention what is directly stated in the text or is inference and implication also allowed? - preceptcaine First and foremost, we should supply our articles with facts. Things we know from canon -background, appearance, abilities and powers, and history - and what we can assume - personality. If there is information to back up an inference, I suppose that we can use it. It'll depend, however, on what the inference is being used for... so try to stick to canon information, if you can. Gesshoku (talk) 06:07, September 25, 2014 (UTC) yeah, i suppose an example of what i mean is a sentence i made on dragon's page. something like how the exact limits of her android body are unknown but it appears to be quite strong given that she carries two capes in one hand. i'm pretty sure people would know to stick to canon information. some wiki pages are more strict than others when it comes to inferring things from text and it's just something that can help me when i'm figuring out how to word things and what to put in an article - preceptcaine